Read 2010-Annual-Survey-Exec-Summary-4-8.pdf text version

Annual Membership Survey Results

e x e c u t i v e S u M M A R y










Strengthening Campus Engagement . . . . . . . . . 2 Impact of Student Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Academic Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Engagement by Institutional Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Campus Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Alumni Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Survey Sample and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 About Campus Compact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2 | Campus Compact Annual Membership Survey Results

· Responding colleges and campus compact's annual survey of its 1,100+ member colleges and univeruniversities sities gauges a host of measures of campus commitment to and support for report that service, service-learning, and civic engagement. Results over the past decade students conreflect a deepening awareness of the importance of such activities in enhancing tributed more teaching and learning, building strong community/campus partnerships, and than 382 million educating the next generation of responsible leaders. hours of service in 2009­2010. the results presented in this year's executive summary are intended to allow Based on Independent Sector's 2009 member institutions, funders, the media, and the public to gain a sense of value of volunteer the broad impact of campus engagement efforts. One key example is our time ($20.85/hour), well-documented finding that student service results in billions of dolthese students conlars in aid to local and global communities. tributed a record $7.96 billion in service to their Numbers, however, cannot tell the whole story. this year we have communities. added data on activity by institutional type to enable comparaStReNgtheNiNg c AMpuS eNgAgeMeNt

tive evaluation among peer institutions. examining the impact · The top issues addressed by of student service, as well as factors such as campus student service haven't changed greatly in recent years, but the numsupport structures, faculty involvement, and alumni ber of schools reporting activity has engagement, allows campuses to assess their increased steadily across nearly all areas. efforts within a national context and thus Most notably, 82% of Campus Compact strengthen their programs further. members have programs that address environmental sustainability, up from 74% in 2008; 80% address health care issues, up from 71%; and 61% address economic deiMpAc t Of StudeNt SeRvice velopment, up from 48%. In an area tracked only since 2009, 72% of members have proStudent participation in campus engagegrams designed to improve college access ment activities continues to increase across and success--an area of particular concern member institutions, demonstrating a comto Campus Compact. mitment to positive change on the part of students, as well as strong support from Figure 1 depicts the top 10 issues addressed administrators and faculty for this work. by campus-based service, service-learning, · During the 2009­2010 academic year, and civic engagement programs during the 35% of students enrolled at Campus 2009­2010 academic year. Compact member schools participated in service, service-learning, and civic Institutional support for service takes many engagement activities. This figure marks forms (Figure 2). In addition to common the third consecutive year-to-year gain incentives such as giving awards for stuin this measure, showing a consistent dent service (reported by 71% of campuses), trend toward increased activism among members have adopted more demanding students aimed at building stronger measures that reflect their own commitment communities. to this work. For example, 51% require


figure 1:

Campus Compact Annual Membership Survey Results | 3


K-12 education Hunger Tutoring Poverty Environment/sustainability issues Housing/homelessness Mentoring Health care, general Reading/writing Senior/elder services

88% 83% 83% 83% 82% 82% 81% 80% 77% 73%

% of responding campuses

service-learning as part of the core curriculum for at least one major. In addition, 63% consider service in awarding scholarships and 24% consider service formally in the admissions process--two practices that support the goal of increasing college access. The biggest jump since last year's survey is in campuses that host or fund public dialogues on current issues, reported by 75% of campuses, up from 65% the prior year. This jump may reflect an increasing awareness of the need for civil discourse on topics of local and national importance.

AcAdeMic iNvOlveMeNt 0 40 trends in faculty engagement 60 80 100

Among responding schools, 93% reported offering servicelearning courses during the 2009­2010 academic year. An average of 35 faculty members per campus, or 7% of all faculty, taught courses that incorporate service-learning into their syllabi. While this figure shows a small uptick from the 2009 average of 6%, it has remained essentially steady over the past several years. Given the growing attention to--and support for--servicelearning over this period, the lack of an obvious trend toward increased faculty adoption is notable. On the other hand, the number of service-learning courses offered per campus has risen dramatically, from an average of 43 in 2008, to 55 in 2009, to 64 in 2010. These figures seem to indicate that a small number of faculty members on each campus are teaching an ever-larger service-learning course load. If so, campuses may need to look at changing or expanding their support systems for faculty to ensure that service-learning becomes a widespread institutional priority.


4 | Campus Compact Annual Membership Survey Results

figure 2:

iNStitutiONAl SuppORt fOR StudeNt SeRvice, SeRvice-leARNiNg, ANd civic eNgAgeMeNt, 2010


Hosts and/or funds public dialogues on current issues Gives awards to students for service Designates time to highlight student civic engagement and/or service activities Provides space for student political organizations on campus Considers service in awarding scholarships Provides funding for student community service, service-learning, and/or civic engagement Defines and identifies service-learning courses Manages liability associated with service placements Provides/coordinates transportation to and from community sites Requires service-learning as part of core curriculum in at least one major Gives extra credit for community service/civic engagement participation Provides space/communication mechanisms for peaceful student protest Offers courses on activism/advocacy Designates service-learning courses in the course guide Offers students mini-grants for service-related initiatives Considers service formally in admissions process Offers courses on volunteerism Records service on student transcripts Offers community service/civic engagement major and/or minor Requires service for graduation

24% 23% 20% 14% 12%

75% 71% 66% 65% 63% 61% 60% 59% 57% 51% 50% 48% 40% 35% 35%







% of responding campuses

Campus Compact Annual Membership Survey Results | 5

institutional Support

Support for faculty involvement includes training, provision of syllabi and other materials, funding, and awards. Figure 3 shows the most common faculty support structures in 2010, with 2008 findings included for comparison. The areas that showed the most significant change (more than 5 percentage points) during this period include: · Campuses reporting that they discuss service-learning and community engagement in faculty orientations declined from 50% to 41%--a surprising finding, since this is among the more easily adopted support measures. · Members that allow sabbaticals for service-learning research and program development increased from 19% to 24%. This is an encouraging jump for an activity that is likely to have long-term institutional impact.

labi climbed from 59% to 64%. Campus Compact's searchable online database of syllabi provides a rich resource for colleges and universities. (See http://www. Among responding campuses, 64% indicated that their institution rewards community-based research or servicelearning in faculty review, tenure, and promotion. Given the time pressure and teaching demands on faculty members, this tangible measure is important for ensuring faculty adoption of community-based teaching and research. However, it is also essential to ensure that faculty rewards are substantial enough to provide an incentive, and that they are effectively communicated campus-wide. This data raises an additional question regarding the definition of "rewards" and calls for further exploration. In a new area tracked in the 2010 survey, 36% of members said they have in place search/recruitment policies favoring faculty

FIGURE 3 · Schools reporting that they provide curriculum models and sample sylfigure 3:

iNStitutiONAl SuppORt fOR fAculty eNgAgeMeNt, 2010 & 2008


Provides faculty development workshops/fellowships Provides materials for reflection and assessment Provides curriculum models and syllabi Offers financial support and encouragement to attend/present at service-learning conferences Offers grants to support curriculum redesign Gives awards for faculty Includes service-learning and community orientation in faculty orientation Allows sabbaticals for service-learning research, scholarship, and program development

24% 44% 44% 41%

70% 67% 64% 61%







% of responding campuses Note: Bars indicate figures for 2010; lines to the left or right of bars indicate the corresponding figures for 2008.

6 | Campus Compact Annual Membership Survey Results

with expertise in and commitment to community engagement. Such policies can be a valuable means of ensuring the sustainability of community-based academic work,

particularly given the relatively small pool of faculty members now engaged in servicelearning.

eNgAgeMeNt By iNStitutiONAl t ype

Separating service, service-learning, and civic engagement activity by institutional type reveals differences in approach and priorities among schools. Tables 1 and 2 depict student service and faculty use of service-learning, distinguished by self-identified institutional characteristics.

faith-Based institutions

sider service formally in the admissions process, well above the average of 24%. Nearly a quarter (23%) require service for graduation, compared with 12% nationally. · Some 13% of faculty members teach service-

learning courses at these institutions, nearly twice the national average. These schools are more likely than most to reward faculty engagement in review and tenure processes (70%), provide grants for curriculum

TABLe 1:

Faith-based institutions register above the national average on most measures of engagement--not surprisingly, given that service is often rooted in the faith traditions of these schools. These campuses support student and faculty involvement by providing both strong infrastructure and incentives: · Among faith-based schools, an impressive 57% of students engage in service activities, far above the average of 35%. However, students spend slightly under the average of 3.7 hours a week on these activities. · More than a third of these schools (36%) con-

StudeNt pARticipAtiON iN SeRvice ActivitieS By iNStitutiONAl type, 2010

% of Students Business Community college Faith-based/religiously affiliated Historically Black College/University Land grant Liberal arts Minority-serving Professional Research/ comprehensive Technical Tribal National average 35 14 57 28 34 39 29 38 37 19 18 35

Average hours/Week 3 .7 3 .8 3 .3 8 .1 3 .5 3 .1 4 .2 3 .0 3 .6 4 .2 4 .8 3.7

Note: Sample sizes for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal schools are too small for statistical significance .

Campus Compact Annual Membership Survey Results | 7

redesign (48%), and allow sabbaticals for service-learning scholarship and program development (31%).

Research universities

TABLe 2: fAculty WhO tAught A SeRvice-leARNiNg cOuRSe, 2010

Research/comprehensive universities show some strong trends in supporting engagement, particularly among faculty, but remain within or near national averages on many measures. Research universities are far more likely than average to offer faculty awards (60%) and provide grants to support curriculum redesign (55%). They are also more likely to provide curriculum models/syllabi (71%), reflection/assessment materials (72%), and faculty development workshops (77%). These schools rank slightly under the average (63%) in rewarding faculty engagement in the review and tenure process, which may partially explain why 6% of their faculty members teach service-learning courses, compared with 7% nationally. Student involvement in service-related activities is slightly higher than average (37%), with most supporting activity close to national norms. However, 72% of research universities consider service in awarding scholarships, compared with 63% nationally. In addition, 20% offer a service or civic engagement major or minor, compared with 14% nationally.

community colleges and technical Schools

% of faculty Business Community college Faith-based/religiously affiliated Historically Black College/ University Land grant Liberal arts Minority-serving Professional Research/comprehensive Technical Tribal National average 7 10 13 10 5 7 9 6 6 8 11 7

Note: Sample sizes for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal schools are too small for statistical significance .

amount of time per week (3.8 hours and 4.2 hours, respectively). Interestingly, 10% of faculty members at community colleges teach service-learning courses, among the highest of any category. Half of these colleges discuss service-learning and community work in their faculty orientations, well above the average of 41%, which may affect faculty involvement. Other support measures, particularly those involving a financial commitment, are somewhat less well developed: · Just 36% of community colleges and 47% of technical schools offer funding for student engagement, compared with 61% nationally.

Community colleges and technical schools reported among the least student involvement in service-related work (14% and 19%, respectively). This may be because many students in these settings are adult learners who work and/or take care of families. However, those engaged in service related to their schools devote a slightly higher than average

8 | Campus Compact Annual Membership Survey Results

· Faculty grants for curriculum redesign are offered by 24% of both community and technical colleges, compared with 44% on average.

land-grant, Minority-Serving, and Other institutions

Land-grant schools vary greatly in their approach to supporting community engagement. These schools ranked the highest among all types in considering service for scholarships (73%), although among the lowest in considering service for admissions (11%). Only 5% of these schools require service for graduation, but 20% offer a service major or minor. Some 5% of faculty teach service-learning courses, which is somewhat below average, as is the proportion of schools that reward community work in review and tenure processes (59%). Yet these schools rank high in offering faculty grants for curriculum design (50%) and faculty development workshops (76%). At minority-serving institutions, 29% of students are involved in service, but they contribute a higher-than-average 4.2 hours

of service per week. An impressive 9% of faculty use service-learning, echoing institutional support for faculty involvement at these schools, which is at or above average on nearly all measures. In addition, an above-average 66% of these schools consider service in awarding scholarships. Business schools rank at or above average on most measures of engagement. Notably, 79% of these schools provide faculty development workshops, the highest of any institutional type; 68% consider service in awarding scholarships, compared with 63% nationally. Although their small sample sizes make it impossible to draw definitive conclusions about Tribal and Historically Black Colleges and Universities, some interesting findings include high figures for time commitment to student service (4.8 and 8.1 hours a week, respectively), use of service-learning among faculty (11% and 10%, respectively), and schools requiring service for graduation (25% and 44%, respectively--much higher than the 12% average).

c AMpuS iNfR AStRuc tuRe Office Structure and funding

This year's survey looks closely at the structure of support systems, including investment in engagement offices, staffing, and reporting structures. Infrastructure on campus to support work in the community has grown consistently in recent years. A full 95% of member schools reported having at least one office or center to coordinate service,

service-learning, and/or civic engagement initiatives. Interestingly, 59% of institutions reported having more than one such office, up from 50% in 2008; nearly a third of responding campuses (32%) have three or more offices. The data does not reveal whether this decentralized structure means that engagement efforts are less coordinated than they should be, or whether they

are being integrated intentionally throughout the institution. In a substantial show of commitment, the annual budgets of these offices have increased slightly over the past two years despite the economic downturn. Those reporting the lowest budgets (less than $20,000) went from 42% in 2008 to 39% in 2010. At the high end, those with budgets of $250,000

Campus Compact Annual Membership Survey Results | 9

figure 4:

figure 5:

FIGURE 4 eNgAgeMeNt Office/ceNteR




$250,000 or more

$20,001­$40,000 Less than $20,000


$100,000­ $249,999


Less than $20,000




$50,000­ $99,999 More than $100,000


8% 5% 7%

$60,001­$80,000 $20,000­ $49,999



$80,001­ $100,000


% of responding campuses

% of responding campuses

or more rose from 13% to 15%, and those with budgets of $100,000­$249,999 rose from 16% to 17%. The proportion of mid-budget centers remained steady during this period, with 29% reporting annual budgets of $20,000­$99,000 (Figure 4). Most offices report either to Academic Affairs (39%), Student Affairs (36%), or both (11%), with most of the remainder reporting to equivalent departments with different names. A few (3%) report to the president's office. The split between Academic and Student Affairs has remained fairly even for at least the past several years. One question for campuses is whether a move toward incorporating

engagement work within Academic Affairs would help increase faculty adoption of community-based teaching and research.

Office Staffing and leadership

takes place, may be a boon or a liability, depending on whether that work is considered integral and deeply supported or is treated as a secondary function. Most campus engagement centers are run by either a director (68%) or an associate/assistant director (6%). For 21% of centers, the leader is a program manager or coordinator. Center leaders tend to be highly qualified; 24% have PhDs, 55% have master's degrees, 17% have bachelor's degrees, and 3% have associates' or professional degrees. The remaining 1% have earned a high school diploma or equivalent.

Among survey respondents, 71% have at least one full-time staff member dedicated to directing service, service-learning, and/or civic engagement activities, up from 66% in 2008. On average, 21 staff members per campus support this work, although the vast majority of them do so part-time. Spreading activity across many staff members who have diverse responsibilities, like having multiple centers where engaged work

10 | Campus Compact Annual Membership Survey Results

Engagement center leaders have been in their current position for an average of five years, and at their college or university for an

average of nine years. Leaders' median annual salaries among respondents reporting this information was $40,001­$60,000, with 80%

of leaders' salaries falling between $20,000 and $80,000 (Figure 5).

AluMNi eNgAgeMeNt

Civic engagement can be an effective way to recognize accomplished alumni, tap into their knowledge, and even enhance their financial support for the institution. At the same time, engaged alumni demonstrate the success of colleges and universities in educating students for civic and social responsibility upon graduation. Figure 6 depicts ways that campuses promote service and civic engagement among alumni. Many invite alumni to serve as speakers or as mentors to current students (62%). Campuses also encourage ongoing service by providing and/or informing alumni of service opportunities

(30% and 46%, respectively); in addition, they recognize alumni for their service in publications (52%) and through awards (30%). A further 40% of campuses cultivate alumni donors to support current service activities. Campuses also offer alumni programs and support for entering public service careers. Most commonly, they supply informational programs on careers in public service (41%). Many campuses (23%) create networks of alumni working in public service. A small but significant number offer financial incentives in the form of student loan deferments (9%) or loan forgiveness (6%).




Invites alumni to serve as speakers or mentors to current students Recognizes alumni for service in publications Communicates service opportunities to alumni Cultivates alumni donors to support service activities Gives awards to alumni for service Coordinates day of service or service weekend activities for alumni

52% 46% 40% 33% 30%



% of responding campuses

Campus Compact Annual Membership Survey Results | 11

SuRvey SAMple ANd MethOdOlOgy

The findings here reflect responses to Campus Compact's online membership survey, conducted in the fall of 2010 to gauge service and civic engagement activity and support during the 2009­2010 academic year. Of the 1,165 campuses surveyed, 740 responded, for a response rate of 64%. Among respondents, 45% represented private four-year institutions, 35% public four-year institutions, 20% public two-year institutions, and 1% private two-year institutions. Total full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment among member institutions ranged from 102 to 56,614 students, with an average of 7,946 students per campus. FTE faculty ranged from 8 to 12,052, with an overall average of 497 faculty members per institution.

Respondents spanned the spectrum of higher education, including faith-based (25%), research (24%), and minority-serving institutions (21%), as well as professional schools (27%), community colleges (20%), and others (Figure 7). The majority (57%) identified themselves as liberal arts institutions. Campus Compact recognizes that its annual survey primarily collects quantitative information and has interpretive limitations, especially since service and service-learning activities vary widely among campuses. The statistics generated from this survey represent a snapshot in time, and assist our organization in identifying overall trends. Care should be taken when comparing individual institutions or states, and when attempting to derive causal relationships among the variables presented.


figure 7: iNStitutiONAl chARActeRiSticS Of SuRvey ReSpONdeNtS, 2010 MEANS OF ENCOURAGING ALUMNI ENGAGEMENT, 2010

Liberal arts Residential Commuter Professional Faith-based/religiously affiliated Research/comprehensive Minority-serving Community college Business Technical Land grant Historically Black College/University Tribal

27% 25% 24% 21% 20% 19% 11% 9% 2% 1% 36% 48%


% of responding campuses






ABOut cAMpuS cOMpAct

Campus Compact is a national coalition of over 1,100 college and university presidents-- representing more than 6 million students--who are committed to fulfilling the civic purposes of higher education. As the only national higher education association dedicated solely to campus-based civic engagement, Campus Compact promotes public and community service that develops students' citizenship skills, helps campuses forge effective community partnerships, and provides resources

and training for faculty seeking to integrate civic and community-based learning into their curricula. Campus Compact comprises a national office based in Boston, Massachusetts, as well as 35 state offices in CA, CO, CT, FL, HI, IA, Il, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, ME, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NH, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WI, and WV. For contact and other information, please visit our website:

for more information, please contact: Sue C . Kelman Director of Communications Tel: 617 .357 .1881 x 207 E: [email protected] .org

citation information: Campus Compact . (2011) . 2010 Annual Membership Survey Results: Executive Summary. Boston, MA: Campus Compact .

Visit to view past years' survey results .

45 Temple Place Boston, MA 02111 Tel: 617 .357 .1881 Web: www .compact .org


12 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate


You might also be interested in

Microsoft Word - 4-06_07Dept strategic planning template.doc
Resource Management Principles
Table of Contents